Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Questions about spooling

2011-09-01 08:17:00
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Questions about spooling
From: Alexandre Chapellon <a.chapellon AT horoa DOT net>
To: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:14:57 +0200


Le 01/09/2011 13:38, frank_sg a écrit :
Thanks fpr replying.

@Alexandre: Yes, exactly, the 10MB/s (average) come from bacula job report.
At least in my reports the speed shown is the amount of data transferred divided by the amount of time to complete the job. For example I had a job which kept waiting for appendable volume during almost 9 hours. The backup job itself completed quite quickly as It was almost finished as soon as a new volume has been made available. However the report told me the speed was 4kB/s... which is not representative at all, of course. IIRC the documentation, Spooling allows to write to disk data before it is written to tape. This allow for better network throuput. Anyhow, Bacula only consider the job to be completed once all the data has been written to *tape* (or whatever other final destination).

From the documentation:
/When the backup has only been spooled to disk, it is not complete yet/

In other words you should not trust the bacula reports to measure the network/disk throuput.
Use something like iostat or iptraf, if that's what you care about.

From the documentation "Of course, if your spool device is not large enough to hold all the data from your File daemon, you may actually slow down the overall backup"

But spooling is also usefull when you have concurrent backs, in this case, i guess you spool dir shoud be at least as large as the sums of all your concurrent backups.

In really don't think SSD would help here. Any SATA is capable of at least...; let's say 50MB/s throuput.


@Marcello: No - very time the spool fs is full (or the maximum spool size per 
job etc.) is reached the spool fs is despooled to tape. And that is where I 
hope to get the advantage from: despooling with full speed to tape. You are 
right, the fs has to be fast enough - which SSDs would be obviously. That the 
reason for the idea about them. A RAID0 with 12 disks direct attached with SAS 
should also be fast enough - but which option is the one to choose?

Regards,
Frank

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by fes AT frankeseidel DOT de via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better
price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

--
<http://www.horoa.net>

Alexandre Chapellon

Ingénierie des systèmes open sources et réseaux.
Follow me on twitter: @alxgomz <http://www.twitter.com/alxgomz>

Attachment: a_chapellon.vcf
Description: Vcard

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better 
price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users